Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61362 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Mar 28, 2013, titled Gay marriage. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8907 Nov 11, 2013
Maybe Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Have you been hiding in a cave or something? Hate to inform you but there are now 15 states at last count that in fact now have marriage equality! And I agree wholeheartedly,NO jibber-jabber! So why is your post full of jibber-jabber? Congratulations to the latest states,New Jersey and Illinois! I hope you're better educated on the subject now,glad I could help!
Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

Clearly distinct, and never equal.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8908 Nov 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, over 1100+ federal rights and benefits are given to married couples. To deny those same benefits to SOME married couples just because they are a same-sex couple does indeed infringe on the right to equal protection of the law.
Which is why the SCOTUS overturned section 3 of DOMA.
I repeat: not rights, privileges. Who grants said privileges? For the most part, states.

Just because you call it a right doesn't mean it is a right.

Rights apply to everyone. You seem to think that single people should pay for your deviant practices. And let's make it perfectly crystal clear. THERE IS NO biological or evolutionary justification for homosexuality. There is no biological reason for stuttering, or flatulence. They simply exist as common vulnerabilities in the implementation of the genetic code but they have no purpose and by no means should anyone be paying for your indulgences.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8909 Nov 11, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
If there were another way for us to have the same legal benefits as str8 married couples, that would be fine. But, without federal recognition we lack over 1400 benefits. For instance, without SSM my husband would have to claim insurance benefits as "income".
I have no interest in controlling anyone.
Pardon me while I don't give a toot about your 1400 flavors of freedom! I don' even slightly care, but you obviously seem to think that you need to count each and every slight. Santa will "reward" you someday so you have to keep things tidy, right?

The world is FILLED with disappointments. I feel honored to make sure that you get your share of them, but personally, I rather put more effort into tying a knot in the "entitlements" that married people have bullied their way into.

You make sugar plum fairy lists for yourself and you'll likely move up on my list of those who need to be disappointed.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8912 Nov 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the idiot who claimed the govt gave benefits to married couples because they couldn't tell before the marriage if they would procreate.
So work to ban divorce.
Single people & cohabitating adults aren't similarly situated to married couples, which is why there is no violation of equal protection. If they want the same rights & benefits, all they have to do is get married. The choice is theirs.
I proved that was obviously not the case.
Understood! Single people "don't feel pain" the way the white mand does, do they?

The simple reality is that "rights" are not based on the precondition of marriage. What you are stating is flaming hypocrisy, both religious and legal.

I have as much of a "right" to be single as you have to be married or you are just plain full of @hit! Completely full of @hit! Don't whine about entitlements to me, you hypocritical #ouchebag!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8913 Nov 11, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
.....
I have as much of a "right" to be single as you have to be married or you are just plain full of @hit! Completely full of @hit! Don't whine about entitlements to me, you hypocritical #ouchebag!
I'm trying to figure out what benefits you would demand as a single person.

Are you demanding that you receive a "family discount" at your local pool, even though that family ends up paying much more than you do based on the number in that family?

Does it REALLY bother you that a married person receives a portion of the Social Security of their spouse after death, when BOTH of them worked their whole lives and shared every expense? Would you rather pay to feed or house the elderly at taxpayer expense?

Would you rather pay your taxes to subsidize a million more "earned income credits" for all the single people raising kids, or let married couples file together? Which is cheaper? Have you crunched the numbers?

And if you object to single (or poor) people with kids getting that credit, would you rather have them starving in the streets, or pay for the prisons and such to house the unfed hordes after the rob you blind, or steal enough from stores, diving up the prices YOU pay? Again, have you weighed the costs across the board?

It would be lovely if everything in the world was a simple as you would like it to be, but in our economy, EVERYTHING is interconnected.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8914 Nov 11, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm trying to figure out what benefits you would demand as a single person.
Are you demanding that you receive a "family discount" at your local pool, even though that family ends up paying much more than you do based on the number in that family?
Does it REALLY bother you that a married person receives a portion of the Social Security of their spouse after death, when BOTH of them worked their whole lives and shared every expense? Would you rather pay to feed or house the elderly at taxpayer expense?
Would you rather pay your taxes to subsidize a million more "earned income credits" for all the single people raising kids, or let married couples file together? Which is cheaper? Have you crunched the numbers?
And if you object to single (or poor) people with kids getting that credit, would you rather have them starving in the streets, or pay for the prisons and such to house the unfed hordes after the rob you blind, or steal enough from stores, diving up the prices YOU pay? Again, have you weighed the costs across the board?
It would be lovely if everything in the world was a simple as you would like it to be, but in our economy, EVERYTHING is interconnected.
Let me make this perfectly clear. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY ARE IN A FAMILY. What matters is that one or two people represent the income of that group.

As far as I'm concerned, groups discounts are fine as long as I'm not paying more. If the pool is more empty then I have a nicer swim though. It's just up to the business to decide when they're losing paying customers in favor of the rest.

That's a perfect example of why I resent Obamacare. Either nationalize the system or leave insurance voluntary. I need the freedom to negotiate and I don't have that under the current system.

Second, I'd be happy to see lifelong partners share S.S. benefits after the money maker dies, but only as long as such options are available to everyone, not just those who meet the guidelines of political doctrine.

You can't demonize my motives because they are based on a sense of fairness. Period!

You WANT to invoke prejudice and you do what gays always do, which is mimic the cultural majority, but you don't have conventional wisdom on your side, which is about the kids. You'd like to CLAIM that gays want to raise the widdle children in peace and dignity but it is just another lie, based on the prejudicial lies that were started by the bullying straights.

You have no right to other peoples money. You have no right to the entitlements enjoyed by straight couples, and you can go to @ell for all your lies as far as I'm concerned. Period!

If straights want to lie about whether or not they can afford to raise a family, they and their offspring can to straight to @ell as well. There is no politics that solves the problem of irresponsibility. It is the right thing to do to warn them and force them to pay for their mistakes.

If the kids become orphans, they can expect the tough life of a kid in an orphanage, but that is better than the life of the offspring of slaves.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8915 Nov 11, 2013
RomanCenturion16 wrote:
A marriage is a union between a man and a woman! Let's keep it simple people, while we're debating. No need for fancy words, and other jibber-jabber.
Reason 21 for keeping marriage laws as is, one man and one woman: KISS

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8916 Nov 11, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm trying to figure out what benefits you would demand as a single person.
Are you demanding that you receive a "family discount" at your local pool, even though that family ends up paying much more than you do based on the number in that family?
Does it REALLY bother you that a married person receives a portion of the Social Security of their spouse after death, when BOTH of them worked their whole lives and shared every expense? Would you rather pay to feed or house the elderly at taxpayer expense?
Would you rather pay your taxes to subsidize a million more "earned income credits" for all the single people raising kids, or let married couples file together? Which is cheaper? Have you crunched the numbers?
And if you object to single (or poor) people with kids getting that credit, would you rather have them starving in the streets, or pay for the prisons and such to house the unfed hordes after the rob you blind, or steal enough from stores, diving up the prices YOU pay? Again, have you weighed the costs across the board?
It would be lovely if everything in the world was a simple as you would like it to be, but in our economy, EVERYTHING is interconnected.
You are playing dumb. It is idiotic and childish.

The argument used to equate mutually sterile SS couples with marriage is exactly the same one that qualifies singles, or any combination of relationships for that matter, to obtain ALL benefits of marriage.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#8917 Nov 11, 2013
RomanCenturion16 wrote:
I want to maim a libtard, I want to see you swing from a tree branch, I want to play with your entrails...
Odin's ghost, how I hate you subhuman-demoRat-progressive-l ibtarded scum!
Day of screaming liberal will come, and it WILL be bloody.
oooh, scary!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8919 Nov 11, 2013
Maybe Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Have you been hiding in a cave or something? Hate to inform you but there are now 15 states at last count that in fact now have marriage equality! And I agree wholeheartedly,NO jibber-jabber! So why is your post full of jibber-jabber? Congratulations to the latest states,New Jersey and Illinois! I hope you're better educated on the subject now,glad I could help!
15 states have abandoned marriage conjugality as the legal basis of the marital relationship. Next to be abandoned, monogamy."Marriage equality" for all!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8920 Nov 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is like voluntary racial segregation. If you don't let blacks into your club, you'll love same sex marriage, to keep out the opposite sex.
Brian, your posts just keep getting dumber and dumber. When cleaning your ears with a q-tip, when you feel resistance, stop.

Your comparison is relatively insane. Get help.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8921 Nov 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Your claim was that a compelling interest was only in restricting rights. I gave one clear example where it protected a right.
You lied.
KiMare, are you high? You have offered no such example. You have, on the other hand, proven that you do not understand the underlying legal principals governing the applicability of the concept of a compelling governmental interest.

Ultimately, this is yet another dodge on your part because you have no valid argument against equality for same sex couples.

If you can't offer a valid argument you can at least attempt to obfuscate and misdirect the thread. The problem is that your efforts are utterly transparent and only reinforce the notion that you have no valid argument to offer.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8922 Nov 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because of a prevailing interest.
They now deny that prevailing interest, making the biased provision of benefits illegal.
You can keep gay twirling, but you know it's simple common sense based on gay arguments (pun intended).
So work to end all marriage benefits for all families just because the gays get them too.

That ought to go over well.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8923 Nov 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wasting time with your lies. You have no credibility.
Said the lesbian trapped in the straight man's hermaphroditic body....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8924 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we don't prohibit out of wedlock births, men fathering children with more than one woman, nor adults with children from cohabitating with other adults and children .
Why do you wish to deny children of plural marriage families the protection of having a married mother and father?
Because of the proven harm polygamy causes to those same children.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8925 Nov 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is like voluntary racial segregation. If you don't let blacks into your club, you'll love same sex marriage, to keep out the opposite sex.
Except that those opposed to same-sex couples marrying are almost always the racists as well.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8926 Nov 11, 2013
RomanCenturion16 wrote:
A marriage is a union between a man and a woman! Let's keep it simple people, while we're debating. No need for fancy words, and other jibber-jabber.
Except when marriage is a union between a man and another man, or a woman and another woman.

Yep, that IS pretty simple.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8927 Nov 11, 2013
MaIi Boo wrote:
This ridiculous idea of joining two of the same sex into a binding life in the legal sense is a waste of our tax dollars.
And the children. How do we explain this "special treatment" you demand to the children without traumatising them?
This b/s game you play is not healthy for you or society.
Children have no problem understanding.

Obviously you do.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8928 Nov 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So work to end all marriage benefits for all families just because the gays get them too.
That ought to go over well.
Ironically, having no valid argument against equality for homosexual, some people are so deeply hurtful that they would rather attack the very institution for everyone than allow equality under the law.

They will never prevail in their efforts, because a majority of Americans support equality, and no one is actually interested in doing away with legal marriage except for the, very few, vocal bigoted idiots, who staunchly oppose equality for all.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8929 Nov 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So work to end all marriage benefits for all families just because the gays get them too.
That ought to go over well.
You are suggesting we continue to discriminate, based on your own denial of distinction in marriage "because it won't go over well!"

The court will not see that as legal.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 hr judy 64,692
News Futuristic Gavin Newsom pushes for big changes 8 hr Solarman 1
News Donald Trump calls unauthorized immigrants 'ani... 9 hr Sammy 391
News Donald Trump blasts Jerry Brown, Calif. governo... 13 hr C Kersey 2
Gavin Newsom: Another Corporate Democrat 18 hr Local 1
News California: The Crazy State Fri positronium 330
News Essential California: Who will be L.A.'s next p... May 24 Domestic Spying 36